Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87758 Case Number: LCR11725 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BURREN CINEMA - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
11. The Court regrets that the Company did not respond to the
Courts invitation to attend a hearing of this claim or reply to
the Courts request for a written response to the Union's
submission.
Based on the evidence produced at the hearing the Court recommends
payment of a sum of #180 to the claimant.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87758 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11725
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BURREN CINEMA
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as cinema manager in 1973 by
Modern Irish Theatres. In 1985 the cinema was taken over by the
present Management. The worker's rate of pay prior to the take
over was #110 a week. The worker was on this rate of pay after
the take over for a period of six months. His rate of pay was
subsequently reduced to #60 a week, and the number of hours he was
required to work were also reduced from 40 hours to 24.50 hours a
week.
3. In September, 1986, his employment was terminated. The Union
wrote to the Company on a number of occasions seeking a meeting to
discuss the worker's position and to seek compensation for him.
The Company did not respond to the Union's letters.
4. The Union referred the matter to the Conciliation Service of
the Labour Court on 11th September, 1987. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Conciliation Conference.
5. The Union then requested an investigation and recommendation
from the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 25th
November, 1987. The Company did not attend the Court hearing.
6. The Company, through their solicitors by letter dated 18th
November, 1987, stated that following numerous complaints it was
apparent that the worker was not carrying out his duties despite
many requests. He had instructed other members of staff to
withhold information from Management regarding his misconduct and
following an exchange of words between Management and the worker
his employment with the Company ceased.
7. Enclosed with the letter were Affidavits on behalf of
Management completed by other workers which detailed various
alleged incidents of misconduct. The Company also stated that it
would not attend or be represented at the Court hearing.
8. The Court subsequently wrote to the Company's solicitors,
enclosing a copy of the Unions submission, seeking their comments
on same. No reply was received.
9. The Court also sent copies of the Affidavits to the Union
seeking their comments. The Union by letter dated 3rd December,
1987, rejected categorically the accusations contained in the
Affidavits.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The worker has given long and loyal service to the
Company. He was treated most unfairly by the Management.
Despite the fact that he is now gainfully employed, he has
suffered substantial loss because of his dismissal from the
Company. The Union on his behalf are seeking compensation of
3 weeks pay for each year of service which is the norm in the
region and in many parts of the Country.
2. The worker rejects the allegations contained in the
Affidavits. At no time did he neglect his duties. Indeed if
the Company had attended the hearing he would refute the
allegations under oath if necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court regrets that the Company did not respond to the
Courts invitation to attend a hearing of this claim or reply to
the Courts request for a written response to the Union's
submission.
Based on the evidence produced at the hearing the Court recommends
payment of a sum of #180 to the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd March, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman